Summary
In the case of Inreco Entertainment Private Limited vs Bhikari Bal Foundation and Anr, the Calcutta High Court refused interim relief in a copyright infringement suit involving the devotional song "Sathi Pauti Bhoga". The court found that the plaintiff, who claimed rights under agreements with the original singer and lyricist, had failed to establish prima facie ownership and had not honoured the contractual royalty obligations.
Copyright Ownership and Assignment Conditions
Inreco Entertainment Private Limited filed a suit against Bhikari Bal Foundation and others, claiming copyright infringement of the song “Sathi Pauti Bhoga”. The song was composed and sung by Bhikari Bal and written by Radhanath Das. The plaintiff relied on three agreements: one with Bhikari Bal in 1977, another in 1980, and one with the lyricist in 1979. These were said to assign all rights in the sound recording and underlying works to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants uploaded the song on a digital platform without authorisation. An ad-interim injunction was initially granted but was later challenged by the defendants, who denied the validity of the assignments and raised several factual disputes.
Questions Before the Court
• Whether the plaintiff had validly acquired copyright in the song through assignment agreements.
• Whether the agreements were limited in duration or conferred permanent rights.
• Whether the failure to pay royalty disentitled the plaintiff from seeking injunction relief.
• Whether the allegation of forged signatures required further factual examination.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff (Inreco Entertainment Private Limited)
• Claimed absolute copyright in the song based on three written assignments.
• Argued that the agreements covered all rights including performance and publication.
• Relied on historic releases and public identification of the company with the song.
• Denied any obligation to pay royalty under the agreements.
Defendants (Bhikari Bal Foundation and Others)
• Contended that the 1977 and 1980 agreements were limited to the sale of records for two years.
• Alleged forgery of Bhikari Bal’s signature and absence of any consideration or royalty payment.
• Asserted that the agreements did not cover digital use or non-physical formats.
• Submitted that the plaintiff’s rights, if any, had expired due to non-performance.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the three agreements and observed that:
• The agreements imposed a positive obligation on the plaintiff to pay royalties and furnish sales statements, which the plaintiff had admittedly not complied with.
• The terms of the agreements were confined to physical records and did not contemplate digital or non-physical formats.
• There was no clarity that the song “Sathi Pauti Bhoga” was specifically included or created under these agreements.
• Prima facie, the agreements were contracts of service with limited scope and duration.
• The allegation of forgery raised serious doubts and required trial.
The court stated that non-fulfilment of material contractual obligations, such as payment of royalty, affected the enforceability of the claimed rights. It also said that copyright is a bundle of rights and failure to meet commercial terms may render an assignment incomplete.
Findings
The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of infringement. It vacated the ad-interim injunction granted earlier and dismissed the interim application. The court directed the parties to proceed to trial for resolution of factual disputes.
Relevant Paras
Para 13: “The 1977 agreement is more in the nature of a contract of service… which included the obligation to make royalty payments.”
Para 15: “There is nothing to demonstrate that the petitioner even attempted to formalise or regularise or make any payment for exploitation by non-physical mediums.”
Para 17: “The petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that they have paid a single penny to Bhikari Bal or any of his heirs… the revenue sharing model as contemplated under the agreements has simply not been adhered to…”
Para 19: “There is a serious dispute as to the ownership rights of the petitioner… the petitioner has been unable to establish any prima facie case of copyright infringement.”
Case Citation
Inreco Entertainment Private Limited vs Bhikari Bal Foundation and Anr, IA No. GA/1/2023 in IP-COM/51/2024, Calcutta High Court, decided on 22 September 2025
Indian Kanoon Link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/143116559/ (Visited on 20 December 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
